Our View: City manager could make government more effective

Cities like Eau Claire, Racine and Sheboygan employ a city administrator to manage operations.

How does a city run best? With a professional manager who has expertise in public policy running its operations? Or with a democratically elected - and therefore accountable - mayor at the helm, serving as both the city's top executive and its top cheerleader?

There is not a single answer to that question; there are examples of successful, well-run cities under both systems. The real question is what the costs and benefits are for Wausau of transitioning to an administrator-based system.

The city took the first steps toward exploring the question last week when Wausau City Council members heard a presentation by the city's human resources director, Michael Loy, detailing other cities that use the system and how it might look here. Loy characterized the presentation as "the kick-off to a long policy discussion."

We think it's a worthwhile conversation to have, and we hope it will be one that involves plenty of thoughts from Wausau residents. Here are a few costs and benefits worth considering:

? Benefit: Effective governance. This is the biggest and most important benefit of having an administrator: The city manager would be a professional, versed in wringing efficiencies out of the city's departments and aware of innovative policy approaches taken by other cities. With that expertise, it is reasonable to assume, would come service improvements from the city.

? Cost: Salary. A city administrator is a professional and, if Wausau is to recruit and retain a good one, requires a professional salary, likely $100,000 or more. Is it reasonable to think that the administrator position could "pay for itself" through increased efficiencies? If not, is the administrator's salary a cost the public is willing to pay?

? Benefit: A nationwide search. The pool of available applicants for an administrator position needs not be confined to the city of Wausau, population 39,213, as it is for the mayor. The city could recruit the best candidate for the job, no matter where that person lives.

? Cost: Lack of democratic accountability. That's not the same as the lack of any accountability; a city administrator still can be fired. But it is, strictly speaking, not the same as letting the general public decide whether to hire or fire this particular city official.

Another real potential benefit to a city manager-based system would be to shift the role of the mayor to the person who creates a long-term vision for the city and sets about networking, cheerleading and communicating to make that vision a reality. Arguably by unshackling the mayor - any mayor - from running the day-to-day operations of city government, we would end up with a more visionary, forward-looking city.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Our View: City manager could make government more effective

How does a city run best? With a professional manager who has expertise in public policy running its operations? Or with a democratically elected ? and therefore accountable ? mayor at the helm,

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Join Our Team!

If you are interested in working for an innovative media company, you can learn more by visiting: